Crows must find new additions after West Coast showed Adelaide to be slow and too ‘same, same’

EVERYONE knows there are two Adelaide football teams. And those who yet again filled the Oval on Saturday left shaking their heads. VOTE NOW

Michelangelo Rucci

The AdvertiserAugust 4, 201412:18pm

EVERYONE knows there are two Adelaide football teams. The good Crows and the bad ones, both taking many people on a cruel ride on the so-called roller coaster that may end in next month’s AFL finals ... or just fall short of reaching September action.

One week, Adelaide coach Brenton Sanderson speaks of the Crows coming of age by fighting with great spirit to beat Collingwood (a very much weakened Collingwood) on the MCG. Six days later, Sanderson is checking his tongue to explain how the Crows could give up a four-goal start to lose to a fast-running West Coast by 31 points at Adelaide Oval.

This is the second time this season that the Crows have lost at the Oval to a team that will have no part in September. It is the third time a season-defining win has been followed up with a deflating loss to a non-contender — Melbourne at the Oval in round 7, Carlton at the MCG in round 10 and now the Eagles at the Oval on Saturday.

The question is not: Do the Crows deserve to play in finals?

The real question is: Why are the Crows no more than a team making up the numbers in a competition that does indeed reward mediocrity with a final-eight system?

Those who yet again filled the Oval on Saturday — with the 49,470 marking the biggest crowd to a Crows-Eagles match — left shaking their heads. Perhaps they are confused as to how the Crows have two faces. Sanderson says he is not confused. He put his emotions into the “frustrated” and “really angry” category.

Many Adelaide fans are all of the above — confused, angry and frustrated. As they watched playmaking Eagles such as Shannon Hurn, Andrew Gaff, Matt Priddis and Luke Shuey set up railway tracks for express delivery from the West Coast defence to key forwards Josh Kennedy and Jack Darling, they may have wondered why Sanderson and his staff do not put heavy tags on opposition threats.

“Good teams don’t tag,” Sanderson famously said some time ago. But is Adelaide a good team? It certainly does not play finals-type football consistently or with conviction.

The standout notes on Saturday were how the Eagles again exposed Adelaide as slow, cut apart the Crows with uncontested football and produced a strong-marking attack that should have left Sanderson filled with envy. The marks inside-50 count was telling (or damning) — West Coast 16, Adelaide nine. Kennedy (7) and Darling (4) took more marks in the forward-50 arc than all the Adelaide team.

The 136 points Adelaide conceded on Saturday was the highest score against the Crows since Hawthorn managed 140 points in Sanderson’s third game in 2012.

Sanderson can argue he was dealt a bad card. Losing key defender Daniel Talia to concussion before half-time did hurt. This forced prime forward James Podsiadly to defence, leaving Adelaide with just Taylor Walker and Josh Jenkins as go-to forwards — and just Walker when Jenkins worked in ruck. But then Sanderson did axe Tom Lynch at selection to work extra midfielders ...

A point is proven. Talia is the most-important player in the Adelaide line-up because he is the most valuable to the team’s structure. With Ben Rutten to retire at the end of the season, Adelaide’s head of football David Noble, recruiting manager Hamish Ogilvie and the list manager who is still to be found must find a second key defender with experience and strength to support Talia.

Another point remains too. The Adelaide midfield needs new definition. If Neil Craig had “Crowbots”, Sanderson has clones — too many midfielders who can be classed as “same, same”. The late Dean Bailey’s words that development at West Lakes has to go beyond teenage draftees and players in their first to third seasons echoes even louder today, along with the longstanding call for Adelaide to find speed.

Until then, there will be two Adelaides. One that every so often finds strength in Sanderson’s optimistic presentation of his team and another than inevitably crumbles to its weaknesses. And the gap between the two is still vast.